- Joined
- Jun 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,150
- Reaction score
- 15,598
- Location
- No longer Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Osama died of disease/natural causes long before Barack claimed to have killed him.
Several newspapers in that part of the world reported it in December 2001.
Yes, Barack's claims were fake news, and yes, most americans bought into it.
Not to derail the thread, but besides having read stories in various regional newspapers (not western sources or papers) of the death of Osama back then, and mention of his death in 2001 by Benazir Bhutto just before she was assassinated, there are other facts that put the Legend Of Abbottabad into the same category as Gulf Of Tonkin or Jessica Lynch stories.
Leftists invented fake news.
This belongs in the conspiracy forum, but I"m no mod, so I'll point out a few dreadfully obvious things:
1. December 2001 was a few months after September 11, 2001.
2. Al Queda attacked us on 9/11/01.
3. Osama Bin Laden lead Al Queda.
4. Osama Bin Laden planned that attack with the others.
5. That area of the world helped protect Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.
6. That's why we invaded.
7. The inference that the newspaper accounts of his death are perfectly honest reporting by tribal rural Afghans has a probability of truthfulness somewhere between 0.00000000001 and 0.000000000000000000000000001% Same goes for Pakistanis or any source that might be sympathetic - by force or otherwise - to Al Queda.
8. The inference that these "newspaper" accounts were put out on Al Queda's command in a stuipid and silly but risk-free attempt to confuse American armed forces/intelligence is 100% (because I lied when I said there was any probability that they were real, see?).
Kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories tend to do that. Just FYI....
Do you know what a fact is?
Items 2 through 6: so you've been told,
And you aren't repeating things that you have been "told"?
You were actually part of the conspiracy to carry out 9/11 and so you have personal knowledge?
:doh
I do. How about you?
More on topic, do you understand what deception is and how it's employed to manipulate the public perception? Hint: Woodrow Wilson hired Edward Bernays to help massage the public perception through what they called in the day "public relations". In 100 years of practice, the government has become very skilled in art of deception.
Somewhere between then and now, a philosopher correctly observed that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.eace
But somehow you have access to the facts because? You know the only sources that are factual? And you are certain your souces aren't trying to deceive people? Were you there when it happened?
No, please pardon my arrogance, but it seems I am a bit more perceptive than you, in this case. Maybe I possess more common sense than you? Maybe I am just better at detecting bull**** in the media than you?
I don't know, maybe all of the above. But what I do know is that the MSM has been effectively a lapdog for the government, especially the DoD, for decades. Judith Miller and her editor approved deceptions on the runup to war.
Today's western media is for all practical purposes the federal government's Ministry Of Propaganda. Long gone is Walter Cronkite and other responsible journalists. Now we have a slew of Scott Pelley and Brian Williams and David Muir and Rachel Maddow and other sycophants.
Maybe I'm able to perceive and understand that, while you are not?
Or maybe you are more paranoid than I am. Maybe you are more gullible and tend to believe any anti-government conspiracy theories. Just because the govenment may lie does not mean the lies are outlandish. Maybe they just don't give us some of the behind the scenes details that might make them look bad. But to totally fabricate stories that only a handful of people know the "truth" about is a tad far-fetched. If they are so good at being secretive why is the internet teeming with people like you who "know the truth"? And why is it that those people can't even agree on what the "truth" really is?
No, please pardon my arrogance, but it seems I am a bit more perceptive than you, in this case. Maybe I possess more common sense than you? Maybe I am just better at detecting bull**** in the media than you?
I don't know, maybe all of the above. But what I do know is that the MSM has been effectively a lapdog for the government, especially the DoD, for decades. Judith Miller and her editor approved deceptions on the runup to war.
Today's western media is for all practical purposes the federal government's Ministry Of Propaganda. Long gone is Walter Cronkite and other responsible journalists. Now we have a slew of Scott Pelley and Brian Williams and David Muir and Rachel Maddow and other sycophants.
Maybe I'm able to perceive and understand that, while you are not?
So you bought into the fake "alternative" news...
It's really very simple, the truth. The truth in too many cases is that the government deceives. From 911 to Benghazi, the government deceives. Elegantly simple.
Paranoid? What am I paranoid about? I am merely judging what I read and see in the media by the standard that government deceives on a regular basis. It's not rocket science friend, just human behavior established over a long period of time.
Maybe in addition to being arrogant and more perceptive than you, I am more into human behavior than you?
That doesn't mean that some phony story floating around the internet about Bin Laden dying in 2001 is true. A story put out by the same human beings whose behavior you claim to have great insight into. The simplistic apprach you take that everything is a conspiracy/hoax/lie doesn't get you the truth at all. It gets you delusional paranoia.
Dude
It wasn't "floating around the internet". It was being reported by news sources in the region. You know, old fashioned newspapers and TV. Recall that OBL was not a healthy individual. Marfan's Syndrome most likely, and also kidney disease. He require kidney dialysis, and people in that situation become dependent upon dialysis machines.
Old fashioned newspapers and TV are quite able to lie and fabricate, I know. But they are also capable of sometimes telling the truth.
And you are so perceptive you always can distinguish facts from lies? Or are you pre-disposed to believe what fits your world view?
In trying separate the wheat from the chaff, the facts from the lies, one should always consider the source.
Statements from those known to be truth tellers receive more weight in a rational analysis.
Statements from those known to be almost pathological liars are given much less weight, if any weight at all.
Rational analysis is demanding. Believing everything one is told without question is NOT rational analysis.
Automatically rejecting all news from all sources because you think that the government has absolute control over them is not rational. Thinking that you know who the liars are and who the truth tellers are is not rational. You can't know what is true just by always assuming that you know who is lying. Your analysis is based largely on assumption and emotion, not rationality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?